Evidence of meeting #43 for Public Accounts in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was independence.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Mr. Chair, I would like to speak. I didn't hear the announcement that the meeting had resumed.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
I heard what the opposition member, Mr. Genuis, talked about. First of all, I think this committee has shown that it's fairly non-partisan. We've always worked together. I have had conversations and discussions to express my view, not necessarily in camera and not necessarily on camera, with members from all parties.
On the first point, I still want to make sure we can talk to each other and just walk around and have private conversations in the back. This is a very important part of our job.
The second thing, to go back to the motion, is that I read the report. On all of these recommendations, the government has provided a response. Out of the list here, there are six sub-points. The government agreed with five of them and provided a reason, and there's one that's partially agreed to. That's all public. It's in the report. It talks about a couple of ministries here. I think it's fair to hear from these ministries to understand why they partially agreed and did not fully agree with this recommendation. That's very important for members of this committee to consider when it comes to supporting or not supporting this motion, or perhaps abstaining. There are three options.
I don't think it's fair for members on this side, who heard this motion just minutes ago, to make a very important decision without questioning government agencies as to why they partially agreed. We have to make a lot of guesses, and I don't think that's a very responsible way to do our job.
That's it.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Jean Yip Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
We just received these reports today. I think we need more time to study them and to have everybody come as witnesses, so that we can hear all the viewpoints before going through with the motion.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you.
We have a motion before us. I have no speakers.
Mr. Dong, go ahead.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
Can I ask for a two-minute break? I think Mr. McCauley wants to challenge it.
No. Okay.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
I'm going to go to Ms. Bradford, who might be a little more ready.
December 6th, 2022 / 4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Valerie Bradford Liberal Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree with Ms. Yip. These are fairly substantial reports that were tabled only earlier today. A lot of us have been in constant meetings all day, with House duty or whatever, and we haven't had a chance to review them. I really don't know why we need to rush through and pass a motion today, when we haven't had a chance to hear from the witnesses we would presumably want to hear from.
That would only be fair due process.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Again, I go to fairness. As a matter of fairness, we should be able to hear from public servants and the CRA on their view of the report.
I take Mr. Genuis's point, but I can't agree with it, because they haven't had an ability to come before the committee in the same way that the Auditor General has. I very much respect the Auditor General, and I think the findings are important for this committee. Also, to be fair on that principle, we need to hear directly from the CRA. It does not suffice to have its perspective on the written record only.
I also know, and I suppose this goes to Mr. Desjarlais's point, that there are issues in the report that the NDP would challenge. He can speak for himself in this regard. I look at the report, and then I think about what the NDP has said on CERB verification. I know that in the finance committee, this issue has come up, around the CERB amnesty. The Auditor General is not calling for that. It's quite the contrary. I think there are views around the table that differ very much from what the Auditor General has suggested and put forward.
I raise that as another consideration for members to ponder.
I can't in good conscience see a situation in which this committee would put forward what has been suggested in the motion and not have the chance to hear from public servants who helped administer the program. It doesn't make sense. We can have another meeting when we can hear directly from CRA officials and then decide what to do at that point.
I don't understand the rush to a particular outcome here.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I, too, am a little disturbed by the way this is turning. I understand that members feel very strongly about the Auditor General's work, but we have had it before in this committee that different departments have taken issue with a recommendation that the Auditor General has made. Part of the work of this committee is to study those different approaches.
You heard my questions. I like to look at it and ask, if it wasn't this way, could it have been that way, and what would that have meant?
This is the “lessons learned” part of this whole exercise. We all want to do better, because we know there were previous reports—maybe not to the same extent as in this pandemic—in 1999, 2002 and 2008, and then the most recent report about pandemic preparedness. These are important lessons—I think we all get it now—that have to be learned. We need to hear from the officials who put this report together.
In the meantime, I would like to hear from my colleagues from the NDP and the Bloc on this question.
Thank you.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Thanks, Chair.
Two principles go into my decision-making on this.
One is the utility, because I think there is utility in understanding the Auditor General's report. Investigating her recommendations is important for us to do, especially if there is an issue with the some of the acceptance of those recommendations. That's not something I think anyone here is disputing. I think everyone here wants to get to the bottom of why the recommendations have been made and why recommendations have been accepted or not accepted.
Based on that and on my conversations with other members, I think it's important for us to hear from the CRA and to hear from some of the witnesses, including from ESDC, which would describe...particularly on my last question, which was directly related to that paragraph. I think that it is a responsibility for the CRA and for ESDC to come to us and give us an explanation of what this portion is. I think that's a very reasonable position.
We should return to this motion. I don't think it's something we should vote on. It's something we should hold, if we can table it.
That's my request to the chair. If we can, let's find a way to table this and to have the vote the same day we have the scheduling of the hearing, if the mover is inclined to do that.
My second point is.... Actually, I'll keep my second point for now. Let's just stick with the first.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
No, you cannot. We are in a debate until there's a resolution.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I have a point of order on that, Mr. Chair. Can I speak?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Hold on a second. I will converse with the clerk.
Pardon me. We'll have a vote.
I'll ask the clerk for a roll call, please.
Is this to adjourn the debate or the meeting?
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Okay. Very good.
There is no debate on this. There is a motion to adjourn debate. I've asked the clerk to call the vote on it.
Clerk, please call the vote.
Mr. Dong, there's no debate on this. You moved a motion—